creditor privilege (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

creditor privilege in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1919–1990 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Carry v. Homergreen
kan · 1965 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1981–1989
2 sentences

1989It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts. [Citation omitted.] And where neither debtor nor creditor exercises this privilege, the court will apply it as justice may suggest (21 R.C.L., 97-100), and this often requires that the payment be applied to the discharge of the earliest items of the account.” See Carry, Executrix v. Homer, 195 Kan. 475, 479 , 407 P.2d 538 (1965); In re Hart’s Transfer & Storage, Inc., 6 Kan.

1989It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts. [Citation omitted.] And where neither debtor nor creditor exercises this privilege, the court will apply it as justice may suggest (21 R.C.L., 97-100), and this often requires that the payment be applied to the discharge of the earliest items of the account.” See Carry, Executrix v. Homer, 195 Kan. 475, 479 , 407 P.2d 538 (1965); In re Hart’s Transfer & Storage, Inc., 6 Kan.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope green
scotus · 1988
2 sentences

1990Subsequent to Tulsa Collection Services v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 , we determined that a creditor whose claim against a decedent’s estate was denied under the Kansas nonclaim statute was denied the due process protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

1990Subsequent to Tulsa Collection Services v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 , we determined that a creditor whose claim against a decedent's estate was denied under the Kansas nonclaim statute was denied the due process protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

11990–1990
In Re the Bulk Sale of the Inventory, Furniture, Fixtures, Vehicles, & All Other Assets of Hart's Transfer & Storage, Inc. green
kanctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1989It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts. [Citation omitted.] And where neither debtor nor creditor exercises this privilege, the court will apply it as justice may suggest (21 R.C.L., 97-100), and this often requires that the payment be applied to the discharge of the earliest items of the account.” See Carry, Executrix v. Homer, 195 Kan. 475, 479 , 407 P.2d 538 (1965); In re Hart’s Transfer & Storage, Inc., 6 Kan.

1989App. 2d 579, 581 , 631 P.2d 258 (1981).

11989–1989
Mejías Montalvo v. Carrasquillo Martínez neutral
prsupreme · 2012
1 sentence

1981It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts.’ ” Neal v. Gideon, 157 Kan. 1, 4 , 138 P.2d 419 (1943), citing from Lumber Co. v. Workman, 105 Kan. 505, 509 , 185 Pac. 288 (1919).

11981–1981
McCleery-Dudley Lumber Co. v. Workman green
kan · 1919
1 sentence

1981It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts.’ ” Neal v. Gideon, 157 Kan. 1, 4 , 138 P.2d 419 (1943), citing from Lumber Co. v. Workman, 105 Kan. 505, 509 , 185 Pac. 288 (1919).

11981–1981
Neal v. Gideon green
kan · 1943
2 sentences

1981It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts.’ ” Neal v. Gideon, 157 Kan. 1, 4 , 138 P.2d 419 (1943), citing from Lumber Co. v. Workman, 105 Kan. 505, 509 , 185 Pac. 288 (1919).

1981It is also the law that when the debtor pays without directing to which of his accounts his payment shall be applied, the creditor has the privilege of applying the sum paid to either of the accounts.’ ” Neal v. Gideon, 157 Kan. 1, 4 , 138 P.2d 419 (1943), citing from Lumber Co. v. Workman, 105 Kan. 505, 509 , 185 Pac. 288 (1919).

11981–1981
Estate of Schroeder v. Schroeder neutral
kan · 1944
2 sentences

1948Notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential to due process of law.” (p. 727.) In the case of In re Estate of Schroeder, 158 Kan. 783 , 150 P. 2d 173 , this court held that an order of the probate court setting apart land as a homestead without notice to a creditor whose claim was pending in that court, was void as to the creditor for lack of notice.

1948Notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential to due process of law.” (p. 727.) In the case of In re Estate of Schroeder, 158 Kan. 783 , 150 P. 2d 173 , this court held that an order of the probate court setting apart land as a homestead without notice to a creditor whose claim was pending in that court, was void as to the creditor for lack of notice.

11948–1948
King v. Sutton neutral
kan · 1889
1 sentence

1919(King v. Sutton, 42 Kan. 600 , 22 Pac. 695 .) And where neither debtor nor creditor exercises this privilege, the court will apply it as justice may suggest (21 R.

11919–1919

Where else courts name it

NY 29 (1857–2017) CA 27 (1887–2026) PA 21 (1860–2023) TX 19 (1881–2024) GA 18 (1886–2022) OH 16 (1849–2026) FL 16 (1930–2022) IL 13 (1883–2025) MD 12 (1932–2011) WA 11 (1913–2020) MA 11 (1842–2005) NJ 11 (1931–2024) MO 10 (1882–2015) MT 9 (1900–2023) NE 9 (1903–2020) IA 9 (1893–2010) LA 9 (1884–1988) AL 8 (1884–2018) KY 7 (1912–2010) MI 7 (1912–2024) UT 6 (1935–2006) AZ 6 (2001–2016) SD 6 (1895–2022) OK 6 (1921–2024) WI 5 (1896–2015) CT 5 (1955–2008) KS 5 (1919–1990) ND 5 (1895–2011) IN 5 (1882–2006) OR 4 (1901–2009) WV 4 (1909–1963) VA 4 (1876–1997) DE 3 (2016–2022) MN 3 (1917–2015) WY 3 (1899–2018) NC 3 (1937–1996) TN 2 (1937–2002) NM 2 (1972–2010) HI 2 (1934–2015) RI 2 (1994–2004) MS 2 (1879–2022) ID 2 (1988–1988)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check